Convoluted sentences

As aspiring amateur writers, we know we're supposed to avoid convoluted sentences. But you sometimes find them in unexpected places, like this one from "Lorna Doone":

After these "charity-boys" were gone, as in contumely we called them - "If you break my bag on my head," said one, "how will you feed thence, to-morrow?" - and after old Cop with clang of iron had jammed the double gates in under the scruff-stone archway, whereupon are Latin verses, done in brass of small quality, some of us who were not hungry, and cared not for the supper-bell, having sucked much parliament and dumps at my only charges - not that I ever bore much wealth, but because I had been thrifting it for this time of my birth, - we were leaning quite at dusk against the iron bars of the gate, some six, or it may be seven of us, small boys all, and not conspicuous in the closing of the daylight and the fog that came at eventide, else Cop would have rated us up the green, for he was churly to little boys when his wife had taken their money.

Can anyone better it? Or should that be worsen it?

I think as I've gotten older (and I'm only 20!) I've gotten stupider. I look at that immense wedge of text and the fact it's only one sentence makes me completely unable to read it. My eyes just slide away from it. Sometimes convoluted sentences are necessary, or there's a specific reason for one. That just looks like a nightmare!

My rule, when writing, is to try to avoid anything that would "trip up" the reader, or perhaps, feel to him like catching a broken nail on a snag, like those encountered in the worst kind of synthetic materials, something that would cause him to pause, to examine the floor on which he is walking or the garment that he is smoothing, to consider what it was that caused the interruption in his action, because such irregularities interrupt the smooth progression of his eyes across the text, eyes that should progress from the top of the page to the bottom receiving nothing but the message that the author was intending to convey and permitting the picture that he was painting to unfurl effortlessly for his reader to be fully revealed because a reader, being forced to pause from time to time, to revisit text that he has just read, to be sure that he understands its intent and meaning, will be less satisfied than one who can progress from sentence to sentence or paragraph to paragraph and any writer, unless one who just wishes to impress with his convoluted language, will wish his readers to be as satisfied as possible and to be keen to read the remainder of the piece and, perhaps, to return for more.

I have read the sentence from Lorna Doone several times. I am still not sure that I fully understand "the message that the author was intending to convey".

Geoffrey Stirling.

transmanspankee
No, you haven't got stupider. You have matured and stopped trusting that everything in print is worth reading. I'm not going to comment on RD Blackmore's writing but when modern writers use such convoluted sentences they are only inhibiting readers. Some do it because they think it makes them look clever but it doesn't.

First, let's verify we all understand the definition of "amateur."
"a person who engages in a pursuit, on an unpaid rather than a professional basis."

So, if you have been paid for anything you've written, despite any insecurities, whether you feel "qualified" or not, means you're a professional. Now whether you're good author, or a hack, remains to be seen (for reference, I am a writer. My definition of a "writer" and "author" differs from the standard dictionary definitions. Writers are unpaid amateurs, while authors are paid professionals). For reference, again, "professional" is simply defined as a person who is paid, in any given trade, or vocation, regardless of level of education, or qualifications.

Now, to stop nit picking and get to the point of the thread, in my experience, there are more exceptions to the rule. The ability to follow the writer's or author's text, does not legitimize or deny their qualifications.

For example, Hemingway, a widely recognized author, reads like your referenced sentence/paragraph; convoluted, complicated, baffling, or in other words, not easy to read. Many times, you don't know who is saying a line(s) of dialogue. Learned people, and professional critics have long argued on what the point of many of his passages mean.
Note: Hemingway is not baffling because he is verbose, but because he is so succinct, so spartan. Brevity does not necessarily mean 'clearly expressed'.

In one of my own stories, I have used "stream of consciousness." For the unenlightened, this is an accepted form where there is a "paragraph" of text without capitalization, without commas, and without periods, or parenthesizes. For all intents and purposes, not a lick of proper grammatical structure. You use it to describe the inner dialogue of a character. Peoples' thoughts don't have stops, or structure, therefore, any written dialogue that describes that usually follows the same lack of structure.
The usual way to depict "stream of consciousness" is to put it all into a paragraph of italicized text.

I'd love to see what some of you would do with a red marker and any of Shakespeare's works.

My point is, any "professional" and experienced editor knows not to knee jerk when they come across what may amount to a writer's "style."

LOL good one Geoffrey!

I always thought of a 'professional' as being someone who main income derived from that profession. Which definitely makes me a rank amateur!

As to meaning of the referenced partial quote, it seems to be dialogue. Dialogue is the standard place where exceptions can be found. Please note, I have no understanding or recognition of the reference, and lacking knowledge of the subject as a whole, may lead me to obvious misunderstandings.

Regardless, it seems to be a first person account of a youth, who refers to "charity boys." More than likely, a bunch of uneducated, uninspiring, obnoxious boys. It also references an older man, named "Cop," of which the name is either ironic, or contemptuous. That because Cop's wife used to take their money. That said, the speaker, himself is young, well-fed, and comes from a higher income family. He himself doesn't have money, himself but seems to value his self worth better than others. A repeated reference to an iron gate in a stone arch that Cop opens and closes, perhaps daily.

A curious phrase "rated us up the green" seems archaic, and therefore might mean something varied from modern understanding (much like "kettle of fish" which has nothing to do with a "kettle" but instead refers to a keddle (or "kiddle"?) which was a basket strung across a small dam in a creek or river, used to catch fish). My simple guess would be that it refers to being "sized up as wealthy," which may be why Cop's wife thinks it okay to take money from "rich" boys.

"Eventide" that's another term that invokes archaic use, or romantic era phraseology. Basically suggesting "twilight" would be my first guess.

So, at twilight, Cop would close these gates, and for some reason, 6-7 young boys would lean against it, wistfully, I'm thinking, after a bunch of other, more coarse, boys would leave. Cop was an old man who was hard on all boys, as was his wife who took any money they had.

As for rewriting it, I wouldn't.

It's true he's not around to defend himself, but if he was he could use the First Person Defence:

I'm writing this novel in the first person
The words you read are the voice of my narrator
My narrator is a man who expresses himself in convoluted sentences.

Works every time!

By that definition I could claim to be a professional, though it was only pocket money and I don't really feel like one. I was thinking of amateur more in the sense of someone who does something for the love of it.

I am the odd man out here as I found this rather effective in its own odd way. It is a kind of stream of consciousness some 50-60 years before Joyce and Woolf. I have never read Lorna Doone, so I looked it up on Wikipedia and found this description:

"By his own account, Blackmore relied on a "phonologic" style for his characters' speech, emphasising their accents and word formation.[5] He expended great effort, in all of his novels, on his characters' dialogues and dialects, striving to recount realistically not only the ways, but also the tones and accents, in which thoughts and utterances were formed by the various sorts of people who lived on Exmoor in the 17th century."

I've got to admit I like both the ambition and the attempt, although I have never been to Exmoor (and especially not in the 17th century).